Posted
by
timothyon Thursday August 23, 2012 @05:12PM
from the gettin'-windy dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "ABC News reports that Hurricane Isaac, currently a tropical storm brewing southeast of Puerto Rico, is on track to hit Florida the same day that Mitt Romney and 50,000 Republican delegates, journalists, protestors and guests descend on Tampa for the Republican National Convention but whether it will skim the east coast near Miami or crash head-on into Tampa, is still up in the air. The worst possible scenario is that Hurricane Isaac stays on the western track, skating over the Caribbean Sea south of Haiti, crossing the primarily flat landscape of western Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico then curving east and hitting Tampa dead-on. 'Tampa is just as vulnerable as New Orleans was in the sense that the water will funnel into the bay area and from the storm surge which will flood completely the whole entire city of Tampa,' says meteorologist Max Golembo. 'It would be a disaster in the Tampa area.' If a hurricane or tropical storm is bearing down on Tampa, the priority of law enforcement is to evacuate residents, leaving GOP officials to make the decision of when to evacuate delegates says Hillsborough County Emergency Management spokeswoman Holly Wade. 'We have to look at a lot of factors, like timing and landfall,' says Wade. 'We provide the weather information, then we take that to the host committee, which decides if the event goes on or if the event gets altered.' A Category 2 hurricane could disrupt convention activities because the Tampa Bay Times Forum, site of the festivities, is within a mandatory evacuation zone for storms of that magnitude."

There is no one true dictionary any more than there is one true god. If you consult definitions in other dictionaries you'll see that there is no standard definition of Zionism that excludes gentiles from it.

Cant agree here. I dont think its out of line for a republican to cry foul when someone on slashdot states to rousing cheers that all republicans are this or that. Broad generalizations tend to be bad, and when you mix in politics it just gets worse.

You may some day have to accept that there is a large number of reasonable, intelligent, and even likable people who completely disagree with your views on government and policy. Just because someone has a political view doesnt mean you know squat about them, their finances, their situation, or their personality.

Object to it as snark if you want, but trying to pretend they're equivalent is out of line.

You may some day have to accept that there is a substantial difference between the two parties/ideologies, that one has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who govern on a platform of fear and self-deception while engaging in vitriolic and deceitful attacks while simultaneously asserting a hypocritical protest that they are the victims of hatred and oppression, that the other side is the liars, the meanies, and the real oppressors.

I'd even give you good odds that some conservative wanker will jump up and say "Yep, that's the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives" all right, as that's their method of operation. They project all of their faults onto you, and completely lack the integrity to examine their own actions.

Just see how Mitt Romney can flip-flop all day, how Mitt Romney can lie about Obama on Welfare Waivers, the size of the military, or Medicare Cuts while pretending it's Obama's nose that should be growing to Redwood proportions as quickly as bamboo.

Sorry, you may not like it, but things aren't equal, and if there's anybody reasonable, intelligent, or likable left in the GOP, they need to look around and see who else in is their party.

You may some day have to accept that there is a substantial difference between the two parties/ideologies, that one has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who govern on a platform of fear and self-deception while engaging in vitriolic and deceitful attacks while simultaneously asserting a hypocritical protest that they are the victims of hatred and oppression, that the other side is the liars, the meanies, and the real oppressors.

So Im an oppressor, a liar, a meanie? Im engaging in vitriolic attacks here?

Stop and consider that Slashdot is majority left-leaning, by a huge majority. Then stop and consider the amount of vitriol and hate that comes out in anything to do witht he Right wing. THEN re-evaluate your statement.

You can criticize Romney or any other specific politician for specific things they do all day long; thats fine and part of political discourse. But making broad sweeping statements like you just did is part of the demise of meaningful political discussion in this country. No longer can I just be "a republican"; in your eyes, I have become "the enemy", and THAT makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate.

> So Im an oppressor, a liar, a meanie? Im engaging in vitriolic attacks here?

Nope, that's not what he said at all. He said your party has become a home for such people. And that is undeniably true. He didn't even say they were the majority, or that there are no such people in the Democratic party. Just that there has been a settling of such people in the Republican party.

The fact that you didn't pick up the difference does imply that the "self-deception" and "hypocritical protest" bit may apply to you. Or maybe not; maybe it was an honest mistake.

Friend, I don't want anyone to drown, some do, but the middle class in this country has seen their real income drop more than a quarter and nearly a third since 2000. We have watched the largest shift in wealth in human history. We've watched war on the thinnest of pretenses against people who did nothing to us. We've seen the fastest growing economy in 50 years turned into a smoking hole.

We watch greedy self serving bastards line their pockets with tax payers money while politician all but blow them. DID y

Slashdot has an intellectual lean, not a right or left leaning. I would guess that the majority of people here, by a large margin, are social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and against government intervention in their daily lives.

If it wasn't for the bible thumpers, they would be Republicans. If it wasn't for the fiscally ignorant, they would be Democrats. If it wasn't for the distrust of government, they might even be politicians.

But, the lack or rational debate is a function of unbudging dogma. The republicans became "The Party of NO" in the 90's, and really haven't gone anywhere since.

I'm a fairly long-time Slashdot member. My user number isn't anything to write home about, but I've been here enough years to make some observations. You know what my general, detached impression is? Slashdot doesn't lean left. It's actually full of misguided libertarians who haven't quite grown up yet.

Why is it than when anyone mentions gravity, evolution or sanity they are suddenly left leaning. Personally I love what Barry Goldwater said;

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them......
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Have y'all ever considered that instead of liberal leaning maybe we just have a sane grasp of physical reality? Hhhmmmm?

Only if you promise to check out some right-wing forums, and honestly tell me that there isn't a group of people who call themselves part of the Republican ideology who engage in the behavior I described.

Theres no need for that; I acknowledge that for any particular group you could name, I could find a subgroup who is hateful, and a subgroup that is not (excepting cases where such behavior is mutually exclusive with being in that group, obviously). Democrats can be irrational, hateful, etc, and so can republicans.

You can argue that there are more in one group or another, but as soon as you start enmasse judging people based on their affiliation you have crossed a line. My being a republican does not mean

Theres no need for that; I acknowledge that for any particular group you could name, I could find a subgroup who is hateful, and a subgroup that is not (excepting cases where such behavior is mutually exclusive with being in that group, obviously). Democrats can be irrational, hateful, etc, and so can republicans.

See, that's the false equivalency I was talking about.

Sorry, but it's nowhere NEAR as comparable. Especially when Republicans accuse Democrats of being hateful because of a stand against bigotry and intolerance.

That's right, the real intolerance is the person who says no to the guy who wants to discriminate against others.

Because FREEDOM!

You can argue that there are more in one group or another, but as soon as you start enmasse judging people based on their affiliation you have crossed a line.

Now start applying that to your own side.

I'll wait. Yeah, I never ever see a single conservative speak up when that kind of thing happens. They just get all aggrieved an

There's a guy who shot up a Unitarian church in Knoxville, TN, and he had a big selection of books by Ann Coulter with highlighted passages that seem to explain why he did it.There's another guy who shot Representitive Giffords (and a six year old to get to her), and again, had a bunch of material by Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and others in his personal library.There's another guy who shot a guard at a Holocaust memorial center, again with a bunch of right wing connections, and many of the same books.(I'm not naming any of these scumbags. It's their victims that deserve to be remembered.)The amount of hate mail and death threats sent to the current president in his first month in office was at least 10x as large as anyone before him recieved in the same time.Just today in the news, there's a sitting judge in Texas who advocates raising taxes for one reason and one only - to fund training his local Sherrif's dept. into a force that can fight off the invading UN troops he expects momentarily.

So it's not a case of arguing that there are more in one group or another. There's no logical argument as to the actual facts.There are about 10 times as many in your group as the other, if you go by the hate letters, or an infinitely higher percentage if you go by the bodycounts. That's the point. ALL the murderers are on your side. Apologists for the right keep pointing to people such as reverend Wright, or some 'eco-group' that pours paint stripper on gas guzzlers, as though some jerk who never actually killed anyone cancels out at least one mass murderer, maybe all of them, however many you get. What's wrong with your party, the whole party, is that it is willing to equivocate so that when there is a nutbar fanatic actually killing in the name of your cause, they are willing to claim that is balanced by a person on the other side saying something mean spirited. You just stooped to that same tired argument, so I will label you, you personally and not you as part of any larger group, as the one who is the problem. Stop coddling killers! Stop helping a political party that coddles killers. Stop using this false equivalency, or stop being surprised when decent people start talking about you like you need tarred and feathered and run out of their town.

But after reading your comment I guess I am free to think of you as a sub-human fascist?

The HUGE irony here is that another response just labeled MY ideology as centered on vitriol, and here I have just been labeled a sub-human fascist. Hypocrisy much?

I would ask that before any of you post on politics, you stop and ask yourself if the rhetoric you are using is really justified or contributes to a sane, civil discussion. I contend that what you just posted is hateful and does not.

I would ask that before any of you post on politics, you stop and ask yourself if the rhetoric you are using is really justified or contributes to a sane, civil discussion.

Oh come on, your party has decided that they're the voice of god. Sane, civil discussion is no longer an option. If there's no room for compromise, and there isn't with you folks, there's no point in discussing anything.

You've picked your side, and you threw your lot in with the anti-intellectual fundamentalists. You chose to support this attitude. Have the balls to take the criticism that will come your way. God will protect you.

you would have noticed that no one actually bothered to follow up on the facts of whether he did go AWOL with administrative cove

They'd been trying to nail Bush on his guard record since the 2000 election. Four years of investigation had turned up nothing substantial. They needed a smoking gun to nail him, and those obvious forgeries (Microsoft Word? Come on!) provided it. You can't complain about no follow-up, because the investigation had already been done. Those of us with logic will notice that this was

Never expecting us the notice that they were the conservatives of their day, and that their ideas are not part of the Republican banner. That's a really tired bit of noise there.

Where does all the "race traitor" language come from these days? I seem to remember a certain reporter who got called all sorts of nasty things because he dared to be both black AND republican. Where does all the language trying to stir up racial tension come from?

I think it would be a bit much to say that all of the fault is on the right. People are people, but theres plenty of mud being slung from both sides.

The poster may be referring to the repeated statements by GOP celebrity favorites (Fallwell, Graham, B-list megachurch pastors, etc) who claim that disasters like Katrina and 9/11 are the fault of America's fall from the grace of the Christian God.

So, it would be quite ironic to see a hurricane battering the place where they are trying to hold a convention.

The poster may be referring to the repeated statements by GOP celebrity favorites (Fallwell, Graham, B-list megachurch pastors, etc) who claim that disasters like Katrina and 9/11 are the fault of America's fall from the grace of the Christian God.

You mean like Jeremiah Wright?

Sorry, but the right does not have monopoly on schmuck ministers. And for the record, I'm a Republican and I don't know a single person who likes Falwell. As for Graham, you won't find a better man. Of course, you wouldn't know that since you put him in the same category as Falwell.

But remember, Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years or so. I don't know of a single Republican President who has ever sat in Falwell's church.

And for the record, I'm a Republican and I don't know a single person who likes Falwell

The founder of the Moral Majority had no support within the GOP?

Captured on the tapes [wikipedia.org], Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon. He went considerably beyond that in offensive remarks characterized as anti-Semitic by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and evangelical author Richard Land.

The Rev. Billy Graham urged North Carolina voters Wednesday to support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, a move that an observer said was highly unusual but another said was in keeping with the minister's moral beliefs.

"Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern," said Graham, 93, who lives near Asheville. "I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected."

There are better men.

I don't know of a single Republican President who has ever sat in Falwell's church.

No, they are required to prostrate themselves at Liberty University -- founded by Fallwell and his friends -- for a commencement speech. Romney and Bush Jr paid homage, and McCain was even forced to show up in 2008 after calling Falwell an "agent of intolerance" when he ran in 2000.

What kind of prick does a minister have to be to believe and teach what the Bible says?

We could get into an interesting argument on why the evangelical movement pushes for constitutional amendments for a untraditional lifestyle choices like being gay, but not for other things in the two spots the Bible mentions homosexuality, like wool blends, not eating shellfish, etc.

We could have an even more interesting argument about why the importance of being non-materialist and helping the poor is called socialism instead of the fulfillment of the morality found in the Bible. Where is the constitutional amendment demanding that we help the poor?

But I think you'd rather type a series of exclamations and question marks.

Wait... Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? Didn't Obama say that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman? Why are you not wishing for them to die horribly in a storm?

I don't wish for anyone to die horribly in a storm, which is why I said nothing of the sort. I said it would be ironic if the storm hit Tampa for reasons that should be self-evident.

As far as Billy Graham goes, on the scale of evangelical leaders he's not the worst.

But he's also remained curiously silent while his son goes on rants claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the government, or that "[Barack Obama's] problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim."

"We do not agree with your political views. A Christian is suppose to protect, empower and promote the needs and interests of the poor, the weak, and the sick. Your actions are dedicated to serving the wealthy. Yours is not a Christian agenda."

Source? Not that I doubt you, but you quote yielded no results.

Either way, they are half right. It is the Christian's job to do such things. Not the government's. When government forces your property from you at gunpoint and decides how to dole it out, they strip the citizen the freedom of making that choice. Paying taxes is not charity. Charity is charity.

And the reason nothing passed was the Democrats were attempting to be bi-partisan. You can see how well that worked out for them.

GOP, the party of NO!

GOP became the party of Filibuster in the Senate. Just because you had a majority, doesn't mean you get things all your own way, a party needs 2/3rds support to end a filibuster. Democrats didn't have that and the GOP effectively stonewalled things, particularly nominations for cabinet and other federal posts.

Can you name the critical Obama policy bills the GOP successfully filibustered? After successfully filibustering said bills, what attempts did Obama make to lobby moderate Republicans to vote for cloture to end the filibuster OR what changes did Obama and the Democrats make to the bills to make them palatable to all parties and bi-partisan?

Harry Reid did change the generally accepted method of introducing bills for a vote practically eliminating the ability to debate and amend the bills. This action chang

GOP is the christian conservative party. Bush said that he was on a mission from god. [nytimes.com] When it comes to religion, there is no debate or compromise. Only way politics works is with compromise, so what do we get, a non working government.

And I hope Obama wins not because I like him but because I want 4 more years of his policies. When he starts a war with Iran and Libya it will destroy the perception that he is a "peace prize" winner. I want Obama to leave in 2016 with the same bad reputation as Bush had in 2008. He may be democrat but he is nowhere near as good as our last democrat president Clinton.

I guess crazy is out in force tonight. So what's the idea here? To create some sort of destructive feedback where increasingly worse candidates are elected?

Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for about 17 weeks, far less than the "2 years" you just made up. (The 17 weeks is from Al Franken's confirmation to Ted Kennedy's illness.)

During that time, there seemed to be a lot of internal discussion and compromise within the Democratic party - you know, the kind of give-and-take compromise that is supposed to make our government work. All of that is still alive and well within the Democratic party. It's just the big blog of "NO NO NO IT'S ALL MINE NO" coming from the extreme right that keeps the government from doing anything differently than the overall failed course it's on of late.

Interesting how propaganda works. It's not clear whether the original poster thought that filibuster proof is a "solid majority" or not. But three repliers did and they all characterize the first poster as either lying or making something up. That's an interesting though unhealthy uniformity of thought.

>> Around 2003-4 the Republicans became aware that the mortgage lending market was "too hot" and they needed to act to slowdown the exuberance. But that time it was the Democrats who filibustered and stopped mortgage/banking laws from being rewritten & made tougher.

Republicans had the Presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2003 to 2007 -- a ridiculously convenient opportunity to address the mortgage lending market problems. Democrats can't filibuster for four solid years!

Can't let the lies go unanswered, sorry pal. The Democrats did have a majority in the Senate, but they did not have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. The Republican minority was therefore able to stop most bills from even coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote. This included not only budget items, like a bill the House passed which would reward companies that bring jobs back here with tax breaks instead of rewarding outsourcing, as well as most judicial appointments and financial accountability and re-regulation of some parts of Wall Street. This is the Republican party whose current Senate minority leader said that his NUMBER ONE goal was to make Obama a one term president. Not fix the economy, not bring jobs back, not fix unemployment, sure as hell not punish the banksters who caused all this, but his number one goal was politics.

BTW, among other things tht make them lying hypocrites is that this is the party of "Let's have a straight up or down vote" on judicial nominees in years past when the tables were reversed. Go look it up. Since facts matter little to Republican voters, they have an easy time getting away with being two faced.

Now, I'm about to do what no Republican will ever do: admit the other side has a point. Sometimes politicians do things they know won't pass to say they did them. So would the House have passed progressive legislation if they knew the other side in the Senate wouldn't be able to stop it? Admittedly unknown. The Republican leaders are batshit crazy, but the Democrats are also beholden to large corporations. But that's what if games. The House passed stuff, the MINORITY party prevented it from being voted on in the Senate a record number of times, and nothing got done, just like was planned because of politics. Meanwhile,we all pay for it.

Where are the filibusters? They're right here you dishonest prick: http://politicalirony.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/senate-gridlock1.jpg

More than double than the democrats under Bush. Let me guess, now you're going to justify it by saying it was a good thing they stopped so many bills and they were within their rights to prevent tyranny of the majority. That's you being dishonest again because you're retreating from your first position without admitting anything.

The Democrats had solid majorities in every branch of government for two full years.

During that time, not a single budget was passed. Nothing changed from when Bush was president except that spending skyrocketed and energy production in America was subdued or stopped whenever possible.

So exactly what are we all to look forward to when you get "back" to governing? Drone strikes on any Republicans that survived the storm?

Just another liberal happy to kill for the cause I suppose. There sure are a disturbing number of you around these days, unwilling to debate and only to destroy.

Osama Bin Laden was killed.

The recession is over.

General Motors and Chrysler, and the industrial heartland of the country, were saved from a catastrophe that would make the dust bowl look like nothing.

An end has come to the era of people being condemned to death by for-profit insurance companies using the excuse of "pre-existing conditions" to deny people their basic human right to health care coverage.

Colonel Gadaffi was ousted from power without a single American soldier being deployed on the ground, and without adding countless billions to the deficit.

That god-awful war in Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder since Napoleon invaded Russia, has ended.

Since Obama took office, oil imports have dropped by an average of 1.1 million barrels per day and in 2010 domestic crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003.

I'll agree with you on most points, but we would still be in Iraq to a small degree if Iraq hadn't refused to agree to a new Status of Forces agreement that would extend immunity from Iraq prosecution. Baghdad wouldn't budge, and so the complete withdrawal happened, save for some Marines at the embassy.

I'm not taking sides on this, just pointing out that things could have been different had the Obama administration had its way.

Courtesy of US Military intelligence, lasting over eight years or more. Unless you can point to an image of Obama holding an M-16 in one hand and Bin Laden's severed head in the other, he (nor you) can't claim that one.

Going into the right country was kind of a prerequisite for getting the guy. There was plenty of US intelligence that was ignored by Dubya's administration because it didn't fit with their neo-con objective of stealing Iraq's oil. John McCain campaigned on the basis that he would not use force on Pakistani territory without the permission of the government. Obama was proved right on this one, because if he had gotten the government's permission it's a good bet that someone would have tipped Bin Laden's handlers off and he'd still be hiding somewhere. Fact is, the President made all the right calls and has as much right to take the credit for what goes right as he has to take the blame for what goes wrong.

And contrary to the lies spewing out of Fox News who were appalled by Bin Laden's death, Obama gave plenty of credit to the intelligence community and the personnel involved. If he wanted to take all the credit he could have done something really outlandish and obnoxious, like, say... I don't know... dressing up in some sort of flight suit and getting a Navy pilot to land him on the deck of an aircraft carrier before making a triumphant speech about it? Nah, that'd be crazy.

Educate yourself. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We're no longer in negative growth. This is not "propaganda". This is fact. (I know that conservatives have a hard time with facts but I'll try my best to use them on you in the vain hope that they'll sink in eventually.)

General Motors and Chrysler, and the industrial heartland of the country, were saved from a catastrophe that would make the dust bowl look like nothing.

They were 'saved' by a loan that was given them when TARP was passed... in 2008. Signed into law by that guy you likely loathe to the core of your soul.

Maybe you missed the bit where Romney said he'd let Detroit go bust. He was opposed to saving the motor industry, Obama was for it. Fact.

An end has come to the era of people being condemned to death by for-profit insurance companies using the excuse of "pre-existing conditions" to deny people their basic human right to health care coverage.

So Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist before 2009 then?

Oh, so if you can't afford health insurance then you automatically qualify for Medicaid? So we do have universal health care after all?

Colonel Gadaffi was ousted from power without a single American soldier being deployed on the ground, and without adding countless billions to the deficit.

...thanks to the "Arab Spring", certainly. Same with Egypt, Tunisia, and hopefully Syria. Contrary to popular belief, the rest of the world is perfectly capable of fixing itself on occasion without a US president or military helping out.

The Libyan rebels were taking a pounding until NATO came in with air strikes to back them up. They could not have taken Gadaffi out by force without outside support. Fact.

That god-awful war in Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder since Napoleon invaded Russia, has ended.

...on schedule, no less. A schedule that was set years before Obama took of

There is no reason to tolerate intolerance. Absolutes are for fools.Of course, not all conservatives are assholes, but the GOP panders to these assholes, along with the stupid and selfish to form their base of support. That is fine, but it is hardly cricket to simultaneously pretend that the GOP has any credibility, either effectively or morally.They intentionally bent over for these loons, and earned the reputation themselves.

"I'm not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes. What God does is God's business, I have no idea. But I'll tell you this: whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus -- there's a message being sent. And that is, 'Hey, you know that stuff we're doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it,'" - Glenn Beck on the Japan tsunami.

This is just an excuse to forgo the brokered convention Paul's delegates will force... They have broke every rule in every state to stop the Paul revolution, and now it looks like they have paid off Isaac to make an appearance to silence Paul's voice.

Good thing for Mitt that "Heck of a Job Brownie" doesn't still run FEMA. Either way Tampa will be in the eye of the hurricane. But take heart.

... the priority of law enforcement is to evacuate residents, leaving GOP officials to make the decision of when to evacuate delegates...

I'll bet that if they're own butts are on the line, they move faster than when it's only the 99.9%.

They can debate the economics of deficit spending, and perhaps, if they're 'conservative' or Republican enough, even a woman's obligation to follow a religious tenet. It's a bit harder to snow a tropical storm.

Don't get too excited now. Later projections keep moving the eye track West. And it's not even a full hurricane, so far, and won't be for quite a while if it follows current projections and gets torn up moving over the mountains of Haiti and Cuba. While having God's Wrath (so to speak) descend on the Republican Convention would be sweet irony for some, I'd actually lay better odds on it skirting Tampa, building up in the Gulf, then slamming New Orleans. Now THAT'S irony.

Good thing for Mitt that "Heck of a Job Brownie" doesn't still run FEMA.

RNC Host Committee CEO Ken Jones said, "I have full faith and confident with the state of Florida, with FEMA, the local emergency management that if there is a bad weather incident, we will get people out, we will make sure they're safe and get on their way and out of harms way."

So...wait a second? Is he saying that he's depending on the Federal Government to rescue them? I thought Republicans were all about self-sufficiency...

Not to mention I'm sure they're tracking this approaching storm using the national weather service [wikipedia.org], relying on local emergency response services, using publicly-funded roads, hosting the event in a taxpayer-funded stadium, etc.

That said, the Republican party is hell-bent on running part of this race on the idea that individuals, not government, creates things. That the government does almost nothing -- other than defense -- right. Heck the whole theme of this convention goes directly to this: "We built this" (which gets singulars and plurals mixed up and makes Obama right, but that's irrelevant) by turning a truism about modern society on its head: nobody builds anyt [youtube.com]

What's truly sad is you do not realize that the support structure which you claim is what really "builds" new business, was itself wholly funded by businesses that came before and the taxes the current business pays...

You seem to have forgotten that people pay taxes.

Businesses truly are not built by the government, or else every business started would be a success.

Republicans want lower taxes and less government spending so that people can decide what to do with their own money. But if the government has already taken the money from you it is not hypocritical to ask for that money back.

Mother Nature seems pissed at the Republicans. Might wanta rethink that anti global warming stance. Apparently all the droughts and tornadoes wasn't making the point obviously enough so she decided to take aim at the deniers and try to take out as many as possible in one shot. If I was Exxon and Monsanto I'd be updating your life insurance policies.

And I'm sure you will be ready to be take it back next time there is a big AGW related congressional hearing, media event, Goracle pronouncement, whatever that gets another freak snowstorm or whatnot. Probably not so much. Confirmation bias is a bitch for the subject to recognize ain't it.

""Did God have anything to do with Katrina?," people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again."

Mods, why was this allowed through the filters? It ain't tech, it isn't geeky in a technology sense (I will recognize there are hurricane geeks), and it is really just political trolling no matter how you look at it which I am willing to watch meaningful threads degenerate into but having it start off degenerate is a waste at every level.

And here we have a perfect example of what's wrong with America's election system today. The article mentions something political and most commenters run for their extreme positions, bunker down and start insulting.
We're supposed do to that. We're supposed to become extreme and polarized. We're supposed to hate the "enemy". Both parties do this. Both parties are to blame. And we are to blame because we fall for it.

For almost all of the operation of the Federal government, Republicrats and Demublicans are in FULL AGREEMENT. They don't argue about most of the operation. Both parties pretty much want everything to just go along as always -- and deeper and deeper into debt.

They are in a lot of agreement, so there is not much of a reason to choose one over the other. To solve that, they all emphasize, magnify and distort their relatively minor, alleged differences -- but once elected, it's business as usual.

And here we all are, spewing hate because that's what our masters have decided we will do so that they can control us.

A pox on both their houses. No politician will ever do what's good for us, the "little people".

Oh, you mean like how that side decided to go to war in Iraq without raising taxes to pay for it? How that side cut taxes for the rich while raising spending within the government (particularly in defense spending) with no way to pay for it? And then complain when we have a deficit? Frankly, both sides of the political spectrum are unable to plan ahead in the slightest, but the GOP position is untenable -- they are the epitome of short-sighted.

That time it was Democratic leaders who made those decisions, while the Republican President was practically begging the Democratic governor to issue the orders that would allow the President to take action.